The paradigm is shifting: Less participation, more data

For two centuries, whenever political decision-makers made mistakes or acted arbitrarily, we took refuge in "democracy." Our general consensus was: If participation increases, erroneous ideas will be exposed, and mistakes will be corrected. Besides, we believed that "if participation increases, public interests will emerge instead of personal interests." 

Increasing participation was seen as necessary both because of these optimistic thoughts and for the "manufacturing of consent" to ensure participation in the workforce and on the front lines. There was not much disagreement on this matter. The debate was mostly centered on who would participate. 

For some time now, human behavior and community behavior have been easier and more accurately predictable than ever before. We owe this to some extent to behavioral economics and social psychology (or should we say "because of it"?)

However, the improvement of processes for collecting, classifying, and interpreting big data, and the development of artificial intelligence, have made it possible to model complex systems and predict processes that can be described by these models. Now, the power of those who can process big data and perform calculations based on models of complex systems to make predictions and steer crowds has grown to an unparalleled degree. 

In the past, intelligence agencies would publish fake reports, buy off writers from the opposing camp, or pressure them, thereby trying to create public opinion. Now, there are new technologies for these: Bot accounts, Large Language Models, deepfake technologies... 

There are methods and technologies that can interpret the behavioral patterns of human communities to understand and interpret the thoughts that even the masses themselves possess. There are surveillance technologies that can secretly listen to and decode the communication of millions of people through keywords. Thanks to social media, it is possible to understand people's preferences and, by showing them similar content, eventually bring them together with the content that is desired for them to like, step by step. 

In short, creating public opinion and manufacturing consent is now possible much faster, more effectively, and with fewer people. So, is there a need for the participation of the crowds? And what would the crowds contribute anyway? 

It is necessary to touch upon the more dangerous dimensions of the matter. The transformation we are examining here is not limited to the manufacturing of consent. The manufacturing of consent and participation aimed to increase participation on the front lines and in the workforce. On one hand, both the front lines and the workforce can become unmanned. The paradigm shift I am referring to can also be interpreted as a form of dehumanization, de-socialization, and ultimately, a departure from humanity. 

We are not there yet. However, are we aware that there is no longer a need for political participation—whether in a real or performative sense—for the manufacturing of consent and the creation of public opinion? I don't think we are. If we were, a little bit of panic wouldn't be a bad thing.